Addressing the murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, discredited gun researcher John Lott downplayed the relationship between firearm availability and the incidence of murder in a FoxNews.com column. Lott took issue with NBC sportscaster Bob Costas discussing the tragedy during halftime on Sunday Night Football. Quoting FoxSports.com columnist Jason Whitlock, Costas said, "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

Lott disputed that the presence of a firearm had anything to do with the murder-suicide, writing, "Even if no weapon existed, the strength differential is so large that Belcher could have easily killed Perkins in any number of ways."

Lott's attempt to take guns out of the equation was the latest effort by right-wing media to silence the discussion of gun violence in the wake of Saturday's murder-suicide. It is also at odds with research about the relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

As Forbes contributor Rob Waters noted, the presence of a firearm drastically increases the lethality of domestic violence incidents. Using statistics compiled by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Waters wrote that, "If a gun is used during a domestic violence assault, there's a 23-fold increased likelihood that the victim will die. Women who are victims of domestic violence are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a firearm."

1. Exactly. What Costas said shouldn't be controversial.

He is basically just repeating what social scientists and public health researchers have repeatedly in study after study. The problem is, the wingnuts at FOX News don't believe in science, and believe that gun violence, like global warming and evolution, is just a matter of opinion.

6. I think that graph

has less to do with race and more to do with culture. The reason African American gun violence is higher is not because of race but because a higher percentage of a particular race, are subjected to that CULTURE. Follow me? A culture if poverty, a culture excluded from the same benefits and respect of White culture. I would suspect statistics would show if you put people of any race into that kind of oppressed culture, violence statistics will rise.

60. he's trying to make unions seem like a prison

even though there's no truth to that --the truth is immaterial.

same with him attempting to say that it's not gun culture to blame when he's saying that it's the minority culture that's killing. him saying that doesn't surprise me, it's that he's been saying this kind of stuff for almost a decade here that's surprising.

62. Its not the race culture. Its the poverty culture.

And more black folks happen to live in the poverty culture for reasons that shouldn't even have to be explained to you (ie, they are only a generation or so into living with full civil rights and equal access to opportunities).

Regardless, insatiable gun humping has brought us to the point of rejecting many REASONABLE avenues of gun control. The second amendment was never meant to be the manifesto for a cult of paranoia and thats exactly what the gun humping zealots have turned it into.

3. Plus the energy required to pull a trigger

is far less than the energy required to beat someone to death yet the damage in proportion to the energy exerted is far more deadly with a firearm. You can be tired and still kill someone by shooting them. Whereas, in cases without a firearm, the victim has a better chance of surviving violence when the attacker doesn't have the energy or will to perform the physical operations necessary to result in death. A gun makes it much easier to achieve that result.

I think that's a pretty open and shut statistic for instituting gun control laws.

4. What laws would have prevented this??? I will be waiting!

5. Don't hold your breath

You'll be turning blue and passing out before any laws get enacted. And even if laws get passed it's a sure bet the NRA will fight them in court and win a lot of the time because of the overly broad and incorrect reading of the 2nd Amendment by just about everyone.

10. Please explain the "incorrect reading" to which you refer. nt

19. Okay, here it is.

The NRA and Pro-Gun people seem to read the 2nd Amendment as prohibiting any restrictions on gun ownership. Even Scalia has implied this is not true. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when we had no standing army and, in fact, the founders really were afraid of establishing a standing army because it might become a de facto branch of government without it really being authorized. Seems their worst fears have come true.

Historically, the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow state militias to exist with guns to defend from the possible tyranny of an overly zealous federal government. Just as the colonies had parted with the King because of his taxing policies. It was not meant as a blank check for any and everyone to have semi-automatic weapons with hundred-round magazines. Rifles and hand-guns at the time the 2nd Amendment was written were rather difficult weapons to load and fire. It took time to pack in the powder, the wad and the ball in either type of weapon. One could not kill several people in the blink of an eye using the then-current weapons.

If you want to go with the Scalia type of interpretation of the constitution and base it on what the founders meant at the time they wrote it then all the semi-automatic hand-guns and all the advanced rifles like the AK-47 would not be allowed to be in the hands of private citizens because they didn't exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. Therefore, the Constitution does not apply to them.

So when the NRA uses the text of the 2nd Amendment to justify anyone having any kind of gun they are really being a bit disingenuous by ignoring the historical context surrounding it.

34. Well, if they follow Scalia (which they do), you could have up to a RPG.

A rocket propelled grenade or shoulder mounted anti-tank weapon would fit in their interpretation. That analysis rests on the right to "bear arms," suggesting it must be able to be held. You can't bear a tank.

Unfortunately for the rabid-gun-lovers, they would be limited to RPGs.

46. As a matter of fact I believe yes

I don't think the 1st Amendment is anymore of a blank check for absolutely any sort of speech than I think the 2nd Amendment is a blank check for absolutely any sort of gun ownership.

If you believe otherwise I think you're being overly literal with regard to the text of the amendments and completely unreasonable in the face of reality.

I don't think we do enough to curb hate speech or other disgusting utterances because everyone yells "1st Amendment." We've already decided that it's inappropriate to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. So perhaps we should examine some of the other crap people yell either in public or on the internet that is also absent of a basis in reality or humanity.

51. Then we have some agreement

While I believe in maximizing all rights, IMO slander and libel is unfair, can be harmful and is usually not punished.

Those who argue (and I realize you were referring to Scalia, not necessarily your own opinion) that the 2A only covers muskets (I would say not cannons) but the 1A is not limited to hand operated presses and shouting from street corners are being specious, at best.

As I can accept the 1A covers broadcast and electronic media, the 2A applies to modern weapons. The 1A can be narrowly limited to slander, libel and perhaps hate speech e.g. inciting and encouraging race/gender related violence. Similarly the 2A can be narrowly limited to protect the modern equivalent of flintlocks- rifles, shotguns, pistols... yet modern 'cannons'- RPGs, belt fed automatic weapons, grenades... can be restricted within the spirit of the amendment.

55. Yes, I do think we agree

Other countries have laws regarding "hate speech" and seem to get along just fine with all the other speech. Even if it's rather outrageous. I'm okay with that. I think the 1st Amendment does protect people so they can say the dumbest most outrageous stuff if they want. There is usually a cohort out there that will agree with them.

However, I think it's perfectly fine to ban "hate speech." What is "hate speech?" Well like one of the justices on the Supreme Court said with regard to porn "I know it when I see it."

8. I don't have access to Belcher's personal

records so I can't say whether there was any behavior like past domestic violence that should have prevented him from owning a firearm. And neither do you. There is evidence of past tensions between him and his wife, which I think should have been enough to temporarily suspend his gun license until they received proper counseling.

14. Except new gun laws that would take the lethal gun away

You asked what currently non-existent gun laws would have prevented this and then cite current existing gun laws back to me. I acknowledge your correction on my license mistake. However, license or no license, I am proposing a law that might take a lethal firearm away, in a case of domestic issues, yet still allow access to non-lethal firearms such as tasers or be temporarily issued a specifically designed burning propellent weapon to replace the lethal one, whose lethality is eliminated, but complies with the legal definition of a "firearm." In other words, levels of firearm ownerships based on new gun laws that monitor behavior, psychological records and domestic situations.

18. In the case of Belcher and most families

the family knows who owns a gun and if there are domestic tensions. Under my new gun law proposal, Belcher's family, mother-in-law, etc, could have alerted the police and Belcher's access to lethal firearms could have been suspended for a temporary "cool down" period while maintaining his right to access to a non-lethal, legally compliant "firearm." But, I agree, the family would have had to alert police. However, if once alerted, there needs to be laws police can use help avoid impulsive tragedies related to firearms.

Also there is a difference in arguing with a window and arguing with another person. It's the difference between directing your anger at an inanimate object without any known context or relation to anyone else and expressing anger in context or relation to an interaction with someone. I think police are smart enough to judge the difference most of the time.

38. Killing what? Paper?

47. Apparently you missed the word "simulation."

And again, no, I have nothing against target shooting or competitive shooting in and of itself. But it is the simulation of shooting to kill/injure, which is the sole intended purpose of guns. Hence, you'll often see targets such as these:

The main point that I want to drive home though is that guns have a sole intended purpose. They aren't cars, as some gun proponents love to compare them with, as cars are intended to get a person from one place to another, and deaths as a result of cars are incidential to their intended purpose. And when you have an item whose intended purpose is to kill or injure, I do believe the threshold for regulation needs to be greater.

13. There is only ONE thing a Knife is designed to do: kill.

16. Not hardly.

Knives can be used to whittle/carving wood. A scalpel to do surgery to save a life. Cut up or help prepare your food. Cut hoses and tubing to length. Open the mail. Open boxes. Clear a path through a jungle. A tool to build or repair things.

Guns? they make loud noises and are designed to kill things. I supposed you could use a hand gun as a hammer, if you wanted. But their intended and practical uses, as opposed to knives, are limited.

17. I spent 15 months in-country Vietnam an I do not own a gun

a pellet gun to target shoot with yes but a real gun no. I've not shot either of my pellet guns in so long I'm not even sure they still work. If I was a hunter I'd own a gun but since I'm not then why put something in my home that thieves love to steal because guns are easy to fence. I'd say a sizable percent of guns in America have at one point been stolen. IMO
I am a supporter of the right to own guns but chose to not own one myself. Having said all that I agree with what Costas said.

30. As Mike Lupica Said "How Many Home Runs Would Babe Ruth Have Hit Without A Bat."

31. So many people who pull that trigger woefully regret doing so and snapped.

It DOES make a difference. If he didn't have a gun he may have hit her, heard her cry & plead, which in turn would possibly make him feel remorseful and give him a moment to realize his actions. Guns don't give you that moment of reflection until after the fact, when it's too late.

36. Very good points. Guns kill quickly and efficiently in moments of rage.

43. He could have killed her in any number of ways

He could have:

• picked up a sofa and dropped it on her. Then dropped it on himself.
• filled up the bathtub with water, then held both their heads under.
• smeared bacon drippings on both of them, then provoked the neighbor's pit bull.

48. the gun made the homicide more likely.

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

56. More of the same

The Delicate Flowers (gun-nuts) trot out the same ancient NRA Talking Points - that were debunked sometime around 1800 - and waste people's time.

Guns are a religion to the Delicate Flowers because they are so terrified to walk outside without being strapped. They will defend their Precious as long as they need to breathe, since they need their guns to venture outside. They are SCARED!